Author
Topic: EOS Bodies - The ultimate duo & why (Read 17671 times)

I tested the 7D vs 5D2+TC1.4x combination on the moon tonight (on a 400/2.8 lens). I exposed the best I could for the two settings, and focused with live view. Aperture was wide open (f/2.8 and f/4.0 with the TC). The moon was only 10 degrees above the horizon, so atmospheric turbulence was visible and limited the resolution somewhat, so this was not the best test. Here is the result anyway, with two 1-to-1 pixel scale crops lightly processed by DPP (default settings, i.e. sharpening set to 3), and a full moon more strongly processed and re-sampled (just for orientation). I find the 5D2+TC1.4x combination has a slight edge, but the difference is small and circumstances could play a role (e.g., instantaneous turbulence, precise focus). Looking carefully, the noise seems slightly better as well, but again the difference is small, and could just as well be due to camera sample variations.

canon rumors FORUM

aldvan

To my eyes your example shows a clear superiority of the 5D on the 7D, no matter what the parameter makes it better. It is interesting that it was exactly Moon photography the reason to purchase a 7D. But after some tests I realized that I had not found the right solution and that's why I bought a Meade LX200 ...

I do not have 5D II images to compare, however I believe that either you encountered some atmospheric distortion or camera shake blurring in the 7D image (something that is easy to do with the 7D, and not quite as easy to do with the 5D II, due to the much smaller pixel size). I've taken many moon images myself with the 7D, and it produces astonishing results. You do need to keep the camera very stable, and it is best if you shoot when the moon is high in the sky. You also need to keep it center of the lens for best results. On a per-pixel detail basis with the exact same lens, the 7D will always win vs. the 5D II, simply because it puts more pixels on subject than the 5D II can. Even vs. a lens with a 1.4x TC on the 5D II but not the 7D, the 7D should still have a slight advantage (about 5%), as on a pixel-size basis the 7D has a 45% (1.45x) reach advantage.

Yes, I agree that the relatively softer image from 7D could very well be due to atmospheric distortion, since they were not simultaneous and due to the low altitude of the moon. This was in the summer, however, and from my location the moon did not rise much higher that night (I live on 59 deg northern latitude). If I find the time and a clear night I will repeat the experiment this winter with the moon much higher up (and a 5D3).

Yes, I agree that the relatively softer image from 7D could very well be due to atmospheric distortion, since they were not simultaneous and due to the low altitude of the moon. This was in the summer, however, and from my location the moon did not rise much higher that night (I live on 59 deg northern latitude). If I find the time and a clear night I will repeat the experiment this winter with the moon much higher up (and a 5D3).

Thats a nice northerly latitude you live at there. While it may not be the best for the moon, I bet you get some amazing auroras. I've never even seen an aurora in person myself...can't wait to get my butt up to Alaska sometime to photograph at night in the winter...preferably shortly after a partially earth-directed X-type Solar Flare. ;-)

For me: The 7D (sports/nature/AF speed) and 5DII (general photography) fits the bill perfectly. This combination definitely beats having a 5DIII (or 7D) only, and the 7D compensates for the 5DII shortcomings enough that I don't feel the need to upgrade my MkII.

The ultimate I think is yet to come. Suppose we get a 7D Mark II with APS-C, then you will see a lot of 1DX owners happily purchasing the 7D2 as a second body. I do like the 1D4 though; the IQ is good enough that you still effectively get more reach than some of the older 1.6x crop factor cameras.

If you have the lenses, my choice was the 1DX/5D3 combo. It's expensive but I really enjoy the clean performance of these cameras where I shoot a lot: high ISO.

The most common best duo: Obviously the 5D Mark II/7D combo currently.

PS: I always believe that there's a reason why Canon make these two models use the same battery With the exception of the 1D/D's, I don't think there's a shared battery for two seperate lines of product.

60D also uses the same battery, and the 20D-50D used the same battery that the 300D and 5D (mark 1) used as well...

Sorry, my mistake. I should have checked the batteries for those cameras.Didn't realize that the older XXD series, 5D and other models use the BP-511 series battery.

Canon used the BP-511 in a number of cameras. In my own case, I had at one time a G2, 300D, 40D and DV20 all using the same batteries! I still have and use the G2 and 40D, gave the 300D to my brother years ago and the DV20 is destined for trade in with CLS.

First off, wow, love all the technical data, but, much of it is a bit over my head. I read and do my best to understand though.

As to the perfect combo, as with everything it really depends on what your shooting. Right now I'm riding the 5d3/7d combo, but find that the 7d more often than not just sits to the sidelines. I am mostly shooting weddings, portraits and events though. Lots of lighting conditions, from well lit to fairly unlit - and more times than not in tight spaces. Even shooting concert from the soundboard I have found that the mk3 with 70-200 and no TC is fine (especially because on the mk3 I have much more room to play with ISO, which means I'm not as limited in DOF options, where with the 7d I'd want to stay as close to 2.8 as possible. But, given that I am usually shooting from right in front of the stage (i get soundboard shoots like 2-3 times a year), investing in a better way to cover that range just doesn't make sense (also, I'm not shooting sports all too often).

For my purposes, the best combo for me would actually be the 5d3/5d3 combo. But I'd also like to pick up a 16-35 this spring too. I have the 10-22, and I have been enjoying using the 7d-10-22 partnered with the 5d3-70-200. At a wedding that gives me close intimate shots, and Wider fun shots. But yeah, I am pushing the ISO on the 7d higher than I'd like in that situation.

Other options are snagging a 5d2, or, possibly a 6d when we find out more about how that body works (I kind of like this option mostly because if I went this direction I could potentially keep the 7d, if i went mk3 I would have to sell the 7d (unless I can book more than I am expecting to book this fall). I have also been giving a good look at the 1d4 too.

All that said, my perfect body combo is probably not the same as everyones. It all depends on what you shoot. If I were offered a big contract to shoot sports this year, yeah, I'd be re-evaluating my setup big time. But as it stands for me, the advantages of FF outweigh 1.6 crop.

While it may not be the best for the moon, I bet you get some amazing auroras.

If I lived in Canada that would be true, but in Europe you have to go even more north to see them regularly (although they show up here in Stockholm from time to time). I got a good display while visiting Yellowknife in Canada in 2009, however (50D, EF-S 10-22 f/3.5-4.5 USM @ 10mm/3.5, ISO 800, 15sec).

1DX + 7D. Best APS-C and best FF. What else can i say. Personally i would go with 1DX and 5D mk3 since i dont need the APS-C crop factor for tele lenses. Hell, 1DX would satisfy all my needs but this thread was about 2 cameras So...5D mk3 i would give to my fiance, ha!